Letters: New York terrorism trial

HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Published
6:30 am CST, Saturday, November 28, 2009

Arrogant

Regarding “Give terrorist a trial — for our sakes” (Page B11, Tuesday), Leonard Pitts is correct when stating that we need to give the terrorists fair trials. If they are innocent, we should release them. He is arrogant in assuming that those that oppose a civilian trial do so out of revenge. Nothing is further from the truth, at least for me. He is really reaching when saying the military trials of the Nazis prove the necessity of a civilian trial. They only prove the value of military trials because while the levels of proof of guilt are the same, rules of evidence are more lenient, acknowledging that homeland protection may supersede protection from some criminal offenses. I am not concerned with Khalid Sheik Mohammed being found guilty. I don't think you will find 12 people that would fall for tricks like the O.J. Simpson glove's not fitting. The things that concern me are the precedent it sets for the other cases where the rules of evidence may allow the next generation of terrorists to go free; the media circus that will encourage those brainwashed by religious leaders that killing innocents is Allah's will; the information that will help terrorists avoid the same mistakes that might prematurely expose their plots; and the people that will become targets because of their roles. I see nothing to gain from giving the terrorists a civilian trial and much to lose. It appears to me to be another misguided political decision by leaders that don't have the experience to lead.

Pat Wetuski, Kingwood

Making a point

Some day the Houston Chronicle will run out of columnists to run political cover for the president. Leonard Pitts Jr. will be one of the last to go. Attorney General Eric Holder was given the order to crank up this show in the Big Apple, but the big guy is behind this. President Obama thinks this media circus will divert all the negative vibes coming from the country regarding his health care scheme, but all it will do is intensify them. Holder had the deer-in-the-headlights look on his face when grilled by lawmakers on the rationality of using a New York city courtroom to take up this matter. These murderers had already agreed to plead guilty and accept the death sentence. This was not good enough for President Apology. He wants to make a point. Does the president actually believe we will feel better about ourselves as Americans by providing mad-dog terrorists some high-priced legal talent? A good defense lawyer could have gotten Hitler off with community service and some hefty fines. There will be enough muddling of legal precedents to keep this nightmare on the front page for years. And for what end? To prove to the enemies of our country that we can still be civilized while they are still strapping on bombs and blowing up innocents? Send these animals back to the military and let them do their job. Barack Obama has enough on his plate.

No civilian court

Leonard Pitts' column illustrates the reason there is such a division in the way Americans view the political decisions made by our government. Pitts uses the example of the war crimes trial in Nuremburg and not resorting to just a summary execution. I do not disagree with his decision to try these terrorists, but the Nazis were tried in a military tribunal, not a civilian court of law. He also referenced one example that critics have is a fear of acquittal as not being honest. Really? By bringing these defendants to trial on U.S. soil, we have afforded them the same guarantees that you or I would have if charged with a crime. I am not a judge, but whoever sits on the bench could very well find their hands tied. Defense arguments will of course bring evidence that waterboarding was used to extract information. So, I honestly have to ask, is an acquittal or outright dismissal really so impossible? One of his final points made was that we must take the risk to feel like Americans again. Well, I still feel like an American, and even if I didn't, my feelings could never compare with the grief that the families of those lost that day feel and still are feeling.

No clue on how to govern

Regarding “Loss of truck bid shows Texas losing leverage” (Page A1, Friday), we have a governor who has proposed seceding from the United States. The same governor is leading the fight against a climate-change bill in Congress. The congressman's district where this plant exists was gerrymandered by Tom Delay and stretches from Austin to Houston. As long as Texas continues to elect these types of officials who know how to get elected but don't have a clue as to how to govern, the Lone Star State will continue to lose leverage in Washington. On the bright side: With these officials, Texas does not have to worry about losing its first-place status as the state with the most uninsured children.

A different hypothetical

regarding “Health care reform could dampen economic growth” (Page B9, Friday), it seems to me that in the fictitious case history Seth Chandler used to illustrate his point, he stopped before finishing the analysis. He did not estimate the effect of not passing health care reform. Here's how it would go. Health care reform is not passed. The Robinsons' income taxes, FICA and Medicare taxes still go up with his new job, as does his insurance premium. His net raise is $1,600, but because there is no $1,900 subsidy without reform, the Robinsons are now worse off by $300. Furthermore, insurance companies emboldened by their victory in defeating reform once again and confident that their huge investment in campaign contributions and lobbying will inoculate them in the future, continue the trend of decreasing the medical-loss ratio to maximize profits. This is paid for by the Robinsons in the form of increased co-payments. Also, medical costs continue to rise at a rate higher than inflation because of lack of a public option or any other form of cost constraint, which compounds the out-of-pocket costs to the family. Lastly, Robinson goes to the emergency room with chest pains and is admitted to the hospital for 24 hours for tests. Fortunately it was a false alarm caused by muscle spasms. The bill is $13,000 (This part is not hypothetical. I have the bill.). Robinson's insurance company raises the Robinson's premium to $18,000 using the common practice of “purging” to eliminate costly accounts. The Robinsons drop their insurance because it is no longer affordable. This is legal without health care reform. Robinson writes letters to his congressman pleading for help. He receives form letters in return explaining how reform is not affordable using the arguments obtained from the health insurance lobby. Chandler writes another op-ed piece extolling the defeat of health care reform as good for the economy and recommending investment in insurance company stock, which is soaring because of continued record profits. The Robinsons pray daily for no major medical incidents, which would likely bankrupt them.